The entire process feels completely arbitrary. The media seemingly annoints the MVP according to its whims.

Take the last 2 MVP's. Two years ago, Marc Stein was saying crap like "only X players in NBA history have ever gone 50/40/90" to support his Nash-for-MVP argument. The year after that, Dirk was chosen for the same reason (in addition to the flawed "best player on the best team" argument). It's a cute argument, but Jose Calderon is on pace for 50/40/90 this year, and no one is saying he should be MVP. The reason why? Because he's Jose freakin' Calderon! Basically, it looks like the writers in the media chose who they were voting for midseason, decided to stick with their votes no matter what, and tailored silly arguments in order to support their pre-determined voting decisions.

Really, the problem with the process is the word "valuable." Most of the confusion surrounding the MVP voting is a result of people not knowing how the hell to quantify what is/isn't "valuable" in their calculations. It's because of this confusion that people have to make stupid hypothetical-based considerations: "well, the Lakers would still be a 50-win team if Kobe were gone, but the Cavs wouldn't even be a 20-win team!" Really, who the hell knows how a team will do without its star? Gil Arenas was a top 5 MVP candidate last year, and his team's arguably doing better without him. I disagree with RedBlack in this sense: you can only go on what you see. The "take him off the team" argument shouldn't be a consideration.

I'm 90% sure Kobe will win it this year, based on the overwhelming support he's getting on ESPN. If he does, it will be an absolute joke. He's the same amazing player-- his team's just gotten better (and before anyone tries to argue that his hissy fit was what "inspired" Bynum et al. to become better...please don't. Credibility is easy to lose, but hard to earn). Can anyone really argue that his play this year has been any better than the previous two years', when he wasn't even in the top 5 in many voters' ballots? Same thing with Garnett: has he suddenly become a better player than the 20/14/4/2 (or better) beast of the past 5 seasons? He's arguably a worse player right now than the All-NBA 3rd teamer (!) he was last season.

IMO, the award should be changed to the MOP (most oustanding player). This award is an INDIVIDUAL accomplishment, given to a single player--team success should not have such a heavy bearing on who gets the award. I think there should be exceptions for those players who ONLY put up great stats because they're on horrible teams (e.g., the Shareef Abdur Raheems of the world), but that should be about as far as the consideration goes--no one in his right mind would ever believe Lebron wouldn't be putting up great stats if he were on the Spurs or Lakers, right?

Simply put, the system needs to be changed, and it should start with the name of the award itself. It's been more than 50 years since the award was first given, and people still can't seem to agree on the criteria, mostly due to the "valuable" element of the award.

Wow, I suck at writing. This was supposed to be a one-paragraph post.

You are wrong that you 'suck at writing.' In fact, this is a very well-written, well-articulated, spot-on view of the NBA's Most Valuable Player and its current 'worth.'

It has lost any credibility it may have had with the choosing of Nash (2x) and Dirk the past three years. I don't care about team records, individual statistics, or anything else... THOSE are the guys that were recognized by an individual award as 'most valuable?'

Laughable...

You have already punctured holes in the choices of the past three years, though, so there is no need for me to even go 'there.' You are absolutely right about Calderon. What a joke...

It has become a beauty pageant that is decided mid-season, really. The guy that is able to generate the most hype wins the award. It really doesn't matter what happens on the court anymore (I'm not sure if it ever did). What matters is whether or not ESPN endorses the candidate. The voters will follow whatever SportsCenter tells them.

In the past years, Nash and Dirk were ESPN's choices. This year, it is clear that Kobe is the 'chosen one' and there really isn't anything that any other player can do about it (including Kobe). At this point, I believe that Kobe could absolutely stink (he won't, I'm just saying) for the remainder of the games, the Lakers win 55 games and he will still win the award. He has gotten far too much hype by the ESPN machine to turn back, now.

I completely agree that the name of the award should change to the 'Most Outstanding Player.' That is an award that can be debated with tangible statistics, individual performance, as well as wins and losses.

This 'most valuable' nonsense is far too vague. The voters don't even know what they are supposed to be looking for. That is why they just allow ESPN to pick the winner for them, because there is no criteria in place for the voters to follow and compare candidates.

The only reason that I brought up the 'take player 'a' off a team and see how they perform' argument is because this was actually done with LeBron. He missed seven games with an index finger injury. In those seven games, the Cavs lost all of them (including really embarrassing defeats to the likes of Seattle and the Knicks). They cracked 80 points just once.... in a loss... to Seattle.

Now, clearly it is impossible to gauge if LeBron is more important to the Cavs than Kobe to the Lakers, Paul to the Hornets, etc., but it does give you a small window into what things would be like in Cleveland without LeBron in the picture. With him, they are 15 games over .500. Without him, they are 0-7 with losses to some of the worst teams in the NBA.

But, I completely agree with your overall opinion that the MVP is far too vague and subjective. If the league/voters can't even explain to us the criteria used in deciding the award winner, how can they possibly explain why 'player a' won the award?

It is pretty meaningless, at this point (maybe it always was).

Good post, though, and don't sell yourself short. From someone whose profession is sports writing, take it from me... you are more than competent at developing a firm stance and backing your argument up with facts and interesting quips.

I look forward to reading your posts in the future.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gts

well there has to be some sort of number on wins...
you can't have the MVP award being awared to a guy on a sub .500 team..
it's just not right and i can guarantee that if wins and losses wasn't taken into account for the final vote that i could find a player on a team with a sub.500 team and make an argument as why he is the true MVP of the league...

that's why it has to be an award that includes stats, overall record and games played too...

that would actually be a fun exercise find a guy whose team is below .500 and make an argument as to why he is the MVP

Here is the thing, though. My system would certainly take into account wins and losses.

Although I know it is not possible, this is the ideal scenario:

'I think there should be a panel of 10 voters (find 10 as unbiased as possible). Have the 'media' vote on the top 3. Then, the 10 respected voters have to watch all 82 games of a candidates team (including those in which he may have been injured).'

In such a system, the panel would certainly see how well a player led a team to victory or defeat and, thus, take that into account. As unfeasible as this sounds, it really isn't that far-fetched.

I often DVR Cavalier games, because my work schedule doesn't allow me to see the game live sometimes. When you have a recording of the games and can take out commercial breaks, timeouts, long-winded blabbering by sideline reporters, etc., the games are actually really short and can be watched from beginning to end relatively quickly.

The panel would have to watch 246 games (82 games by each of the three candidates). Take out commercials and all of the other stuff and they could bang out this process in three weeks... easily... if not a shorter period of time...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tainted Sword

I pm'd Jeff once, suggesting he give the mods banning powers and establish a consistent set of rules to keep the trolls in check, but he never responded. I’m at the point that I don’t wish to come to this site anymore (other than the Lakers forum, of course), but there’s really nowhere else to discuss NBA ball around here.

If I had the money, I would get a VB license and start an NBA board WITH RULES and WITHOUT TROLLS. =(

I went as far as asking Jeff if he would consider me as a moderator and I asked him if he needed help cleaning up the forums. I never heard back from him on that. I don't know if he really WANTS to clean the forums up because, for as much as the trolls are ruining the site for those of us interested in having intellectual conversation, trolls do 'up' the amount of views that the site gets, which helps in advertising.

I would hope that this site would be more than about money for Jeff (considering he probably makes little, if any), but that is the only reason I can figure that a lot of these worthless trolls are still posting their garbage.

Jeff needs to get a fresh crop of moderators (I have already volunteered) and give those new mods the power to ban. I guarantee you that this place would be 100x better within a matter of HOURS, not even days.

We know the good posters from the bad ones... It would be a relatively easy job to clean the site up.

I'm just not sure that is in Jeff's best interest.

SoCalMike,
Thanks for the nice welcome. I look forward to having good discussions in this forum. It may save my 'ISH life,' so to speak. I was honestly thinking about resigning for good a few days ago. This forum is promising, though.

Would you guys mind if I invited a few of my fellow Cavalier friends in? Don't worry, PB won't get an invite. There are several of us that are assets to the site and I'm sure those guys are as frustrated with the main forum as I am. Actually, I know they are... they have been PMing me about the downfall of the site.

I realize that you guys want to keep this mostly Laker fans, but, at this point, intelligent posters need some place to escape the mongoloids that populate the main board.

FrankFoley's the man. He constantly sells himself short on his writing ability; I think its sort of his signature now. Writes an amazing post than ends it with a disclaimer regarding his long-windedness. I for one like long-winded, when its rational, interesting, and provocative, like his entries are.

As for you RBA, your posts on the main forum (and now in here) are one of the few that I read with delight, even when I don't agree with them. If your fellow Cavs posters are anything like you, I'd love to see them in here. But that's just me (a person of no ISH authority).

Regarding the MVP thing...I listened to an interesting ESPN podcast between Bill Simmons and Ric Bucher the other day. And they debated the Lebron v. Kobe thing a bit. And they also came to the conclusion about how meaningless the "Most Valuable Player" label is and how much unnecessary controversy it creates. Bill basically asked Ric why don't they change it or at least give it a precise criteria and definition. Ric's answer was simple (and I rarely agree with him, especially since he's a complete ******* when discussing all things Lakers) and obvious enough I wish I had noticed it too. They won't change the award BECAUSE of the controversy it creates. If the MVP award was clearly defined it would be way easier to chose a winner and all the talk and bullsh*t goes away. Look how much traffic comes to this site (just a small little piece of the internet which is just a tiny peice of the whole world of media) because of the debate. Not only do we argue about WHO should win it or WHY, but we also argue about what the MVP itself actually MEANS. Stern, and any other rationale commissioner would never trade in all that hype, coverage, and attention that these yearly contests generate for the league just to have a more precise, logical award criteria. It just won't happen. Its bad for business, simple as that.

The result is (as Foley said) we get a media-led change in MVP criteria every year. One year its "best player on the best team," next year its "does the most with the least," next its "best statistics overall." Complete and utter sanctimonious horse sh*t. So no matter what kind of case you make for any of the MVP candidates there always remains a way to make a counter-case against that person and for another. Its inherent in the nature of the award. I would have no qualms with Lebron, Kobe, or Paul winning the MVP. I just feel like its Kobe's turn with the Lakers great record this year. And I don't feel bad about Lebron not winning this one, because I don't think he has much competition over the next 10 years (although the league is FULL of very talented players, there's just no-one besides Kobe who's on his way out, that's even in the same ball-park talent-wise as Lebron). Carmelo, Wade, Dwight, etc. just don't have the "take the game over" insane stat producing ability that LBJ does. I honestly think, barring any major injuries and low-motivation levels, he could win something like 8-9 MVP's before its all said and done.

FrankFoley's the man. He constantly sells himself short on his writing ability; I think its sort of his signature now. Writes an amazing post than ends it with a disclaimer regarding his long-windedness. I for one like long-winded, when its rational, interesting, and provocative, like his entries are.

As for you RBA, your posts on the main forum (and now in here) are one of the few that I read with delight, even when I don't agree with them. If your fellow Cavs posters are anything like you, I'd love to see them in here. But that's just me (a person of no ISH authority).

Regarding the MVP thing...I listened to an interesting ESPN podcast between Bill Simmons and Ric Bucher the other day. And they debated the Lebron v. Kobe thing a bit. And they also came to the conclusion about how meaningless the "Most Valuable Player" label is and how much unnecessary controversy it creates. Bill basically asked Ric why don't they change it or at least give it a precise criteria and definition. Ric's answer was simple (and I rarely agree with him, especially since he's a complete ******* when discussing all things Lakers) and obvious enough I wish I had noticed it too. They won't change the award BECAUSE of the controversy it creates. If the MVP award was clearly defined it would be way easier to chose a winner and all the talk and bullsh*t goes away. Look how much traffic comes to this site (just a small little piece of the internet which is just a tiny peice of the whole world of media) because of the debate. Not only do we argue about WHO should win it or WHY, but we also argue about what the MVP itself actually MEANS. Stern, and any other rationale commissioner would never trade in all that hype, coverage, and attention that these yearly contests generate for the league just to have a more precise, logical award criteria. It just won't happen. Its bad for business, simple as that.

The result is (as Foley said) we get a media-led change in MVP criteria every year. One year its "best player on the best team," next year its "does the most with the least," next its "best statistics overall." Complete and utter sanctimonious horse sh*t. So no matter what kind of case you make for any of the MVP candidates there always remains a way to make a counter-case against that person and for another. Its inherent in the nature of the award.

I heard the same podcast with Simmons and Bucher and they both brought up several interesting points. It absolutely makes sense that Stern would want these endless discussions/debates/arguments with no real threat of resolution regarding the MVP award.

The old saying is 'no press is bad press.' The idiocy of the MVP award, no matter how obvious, will be debated every season because of its inherent lack of anything resembling a criteria. Unfortunately, it looks like this is something we will be stuck with forever, because Stern hears/sees these debates dominating every form of media.

If the criteria was clearly defined as 'best player on best team,' the choice would be easy. If the criteria was 'most outstanding player,' the choice would be very simple (especially this season).

There would be nothing to debate. Stern has us right where he wants us... Clueless as to how the process is decided and debating endlessly with no possibility of a light at the end of the tunnel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LakerDynasty00

I would have no qualms with Lebron, Kobe, or Paul winning the MVP. I just feel like its Kobe's turn with the Lakers great record this year. And I don't feel bad about Lebron not winning this one, because I don't think he has much competition over the next 10 years (although the league is FULL of very talented players, there's just no-one besides Kobe who's on his way out, that's even in the same ball-park talent-wise as Lebron). Carmelo, Wade, Dwight, etc. just don't have the "take the game over" insane stat producing ability that LBJ does. I honestly think, barring any major injuries and low-motivation levels, he could win something like 8-9 MVP's before its all said and done.

I have no problem with Kobe or Paul winning the award. Both guys have had tremendous seasons on excellent teams in a tough conference.

That said, it pains me to see LeBron dismissed again, with historically incredible numbers on a pretty good team. In 2006, he put up 31/7/6 (48% from the field) on a 50 win team... no MVP award.

This year, he has one-upped himself with 30+/8+/7+/2+/1+ on 49% shooting. The team is on its way to a possible 50 win season. I honestly didn't believe numbers that all-around amazing were possible in today's NBA, but LeBron is doing it, night-in and night-out. Yet, it is clear that the MVP will not be coming his way this season.

I understand that Kobe has seniority and the better team, but my only fear is that, LeBron is setting the bar so high, when his team really does have the wins to back up his MVP candidacy, his statistics may not be this outstanding, leading voters to think, 'yeah... the team is better, but he is having a down year.'

Just look at last season... The Cavs were right with the Pistons on top of the East for the majority of the season (finishing with the second best record), had 50+ wins and LeBron wasn't even in the MVP discussions. Why? Because, he was, supposedly, having a 'down' year (although his team was performing well).

He averaged 27.3 points on just under 48% from the field and grabbed 6.8 rebounds and 6.0 assists per game. Now, those numbers pale in comparison to what he is doing this year and what he had done in 2006, but they were still good enough to warrant being in the MVP discussion, especially considering he was on a 50+ win team that finished with the 2nd best record in the conference.

But, the consensus was that he was having a 'down' year, so I don't even think he finished in the top 5 (not positive about that).

This is my fear... Has LeBron set the bar so high that anything less than 31/8/8 will be looked upon as a 'down' year?

I heard the same podcast with Simmons and Bucher and they both brought up several interesting points. It absolutely makes sense that Stern would want these endless discussions/debates/arguments with no real threat of resolution regarding the MVP award.

The old saying is 'no press is bad press.' The idiocy of the MVP award, no matter how obvious, will be debated every season because of its inherent lack of anything resembling a criteria. Unfortunately, it looks like this is something we will be stuck with forever, because Stern hears/sees these debates dominating every form of media.

If the criteria was clearly defined as 'best player on best team,' the choice would be easy. If the criteria was 'most outstanding player,' the choice would be very simple (especially this season).

There would be nothing to debate. Stern has us right where he wants us... Clueless as to how the process is decided and debating endlessly with no possibility of a light at the end of the tunnel.

I have no problem with Kobe or Paul winning the award. Both guys have had tremendous seasons on excellent teams in a tough conference.

That said, it pains me to see LeBron dismissed again, with historically incredible numbers on a pretty good team. In 2006, he put up 31/7/6 (48% from the field) on a 50 win team... no MVP award.

This year, he has one-upped himself with 30+/8+/7+/2+/1+ on 49% shooting. The team is on its way to a possible 50 win season. I honestly didn't believe numbers that all-around amazing were possible in today's NBA, but LeBron is doing it, night-in and night-out. Yet, it is clear that the MVP will not be coming his way this season.

I understand that Kobe has seniority and the better team, but my only fear is that, LeBron is setting the bar so high, when his team really does have the wins to back up his MVP candidacy, his statistics may not be this outstanding, leading voters to think, 'yeah... the team is better, but he is having a down year.'

Just look at last season... The Cavs were right with the Pistons on top of the East for the majority of the season (finishing with the second best record), had 50+ wins and LeBron wasn't even in the MVP discussions. Why? Because, he was, supposedly, having a 'down' year (although his team was performing well).

He averaged 27.3 points on just under 48% from the field and grabbed 6.8 rebounds and 6.0 assists per game. Now, those numbers pale in comparison to what he is doing this year and what he had done in 2006, but they were still good enough to warrant being in the MVP discussion, especially considering he was on a 50+ win team that finished with the 2nd best record in the conference.

But, the consensus was that he was having a 'down' year, so I don't even think he finished in the top 5 (not positive about that).

This is my fear... Has LeBron set the bar so high that anything less than 31/8/8 will be looked upon as a 'down' year?

Good convo in here fellas.

I don't think you should fear that at all RBA...past couple of years, you would hear the analysts, 'experts', writers mention how Kobe is dominating the league but his team doesnt have enough wins for him to be MVP. This season, a lot of those same guys are now picking Kobe for their MVP and noting the Lakers record despite Kobe averaging less numbers than he was. Sometimes taking a hit in numbers can be a good thing for your team and its only natural once you have a legit team around you. I think Lebron's overall dominance right now is setting him up for that when the Cavs top the conference or the league, MVP would be all his.